Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-30-2011, 11:44 AM   #101
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Sorry about the grammatical and spelling errors, my post was off the cuff and it's now past the deadline for editing it. Re-reading it shows a number of such errors, but fortunately, none that render any of the data inaccurate.
I suppose that, technically, all you said was "sort of" accurate--like "a nuclear plant cannot explode..."

Ever since this incident began, we've been told that it wasn't serious, that the releases were low level, that the cores hadn't melted, no containment had been breached....

Yet as time goes by, all those statements are revealed as false and, in many cases, intentionally misleading.

We've seen all kinds of assurances melt away as time passes and the disaster gets steadily worse.

Since you told me a nuclear plant can't explode and that reactor containment vessels will protect us, we've seen reactors explode and containment vessels breached. You say "It took a huge earthquake..." but whose idea was it to build that thing on an earthquake fault? And in reach of tsunamis? What can you call that except human error?

People (especially acting in the nterests of corporations and salesmen) are not smart enough to operate nuclear power plants. Whatever safeguard you think exists, nature and human folly will eventually combine to destroy them.

Now you tell me there were "no deaths" in the Fukishima incident, making the tsunami and earthquake far worse in effect.

But radiation kills over time and you won't go wrong by betting that we'll see scores of deaths from this incident over the next couple of years.

I'll grant you know a lot about the subject, but, unfortunately, nature has shown the most important parts of what you've said here to be wrong.

Or maybe you'd like to spend a few weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone with your motorcycle? Send us some pics?

None of the nuclear apologists here have accepted that challenge so far. I wonder why?

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 07:42 PM   #102
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

There's a huge fallacy in Tarik's argument, which not to be disrespectful does sound like a well-crafted TEPCO public relations release. The effects of normal external background, solar, and x-ray radiation can't be compared to internal deposition of radioactive hot particles which the Japanese and Americans have been inhaling and ingesting since the beginning of the accident.

From wiki, "the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source."

Duration of exposure also needs considered. Once you leave an area of external radiation, there's no more radiation. Once you inhale a hot particle of cesium in your lung it will be destroying the cells and DNA of localized lung tissue for the rest of your life and continue releasing radiation long after you've been converted into ashes.

I haven't been able to find the report from a few months back, but TEPCO said there were around 10 or 20 workers at the site who were missing and they couldn't account for. This doesn't mean any or all of them are dead or alive but their whereabouts have never been mentioned since. TEPCO said a worker died couple weeks ago from leukemia (link) whether excessive radiation had anything to do with that we obviously can't know. But we do know both workers and their doctors have said their official exposure rates are far less than what they're actually getting so they can report under the 250 ms limit and continue working.

Perhaps only a million Japanese will die of cancer from the accident, luckily for them as much as 80% of the fallout has gone over the Pacific with a certain percentage of that reaching the states. We probably won't be seeing many cases of severely deformed babies in Japan unlike Chernobyl because they'll almost all be aborted. Video on abortions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 10:20 AM   #103
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post

2. Human incompetence notwithstanding, it took the largest earthquake in Japanese history (one of the largest ever measured) to cause the meltdowns, not human errors.
"The risk that an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought, 24 times as high in one case, according to an AP analysis of preliminary government data. The nation's nuclear regulator believes a quarter of America's reactors may need modifications to make them safer."

"...shaking from the largest earthquake to hit Virginia in 117 years appeared to exceed what the North Anna nuclear power plant northwest of Richmond was built to sustain."

http://news.yahoo.com/quake-risk-rea...071301249.html

Let us not talk falsely, now. The hour is getting late...

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 11:40 PM   #104
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 563
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
There's a huge fallacy in Tarik's argument, .... The effects of normal external background, solar, and x-ray radiation can't be compared to internal deposition of radioactive hot particles which the Japanese and Americans have been inhaling and ingesting since the beginning of the accident.
No fallacy there, Tenyu. Radiation is radiation. The difference between ingesting in and external exposure as a problem is entirely due to the ongoing dangerous exposure. There is nothing in the data I shared that ignores that. All radiation exposure is considered by duration, and the risk calculations, had you actually read them, discuss that.

Quote:
I haven't been able to find the report from a few months back, but TEPCO said there were around 10 or 20 workers at the site who were missing and they couldn't account for.
All the current reports of dead workers are due to non-radioactive causes.

Quote:
But we do know both workers and their doctors have said their official exposure rates are far less than what they're actually getting so they can report under the 250 ms limit and continue working.
We KNOW this?

Quote:
Perhaps only a million Japanese will die of cancer from the accident, luckily for them as much as 80% of the fallout has gone over the Pacific with a certain percentage of that reaching the states. We probably won't be seeing many cases of severely deformed babies in Japan unlike Chernobyl because they'll almost all be aborted. Video on abortions.
We don't know how many people will die of cancers from the accident. One million is certainly possible, but only epidemiological studies will validate that. Only time will really reveal that. I personally don't think it will happen, but I don't know.

Best,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 12:10 AM   #105
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 563
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

David,

You threw a volley of accusatory comments and questions at me in half a dozen posts and I am willing to answer a few of those questions, but frankly, you clearly lack the desire to process the scientific data I (and others in other threads) have already offered, or even in disagreeing with me, you would not have made many of the statements you have made. Some of the data I offered even comes from the UCS, a nuclear opposition group of academic scientists.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I suppose that, technically, all you said was "sort of" accurate--like "a nuclear plant cannot explode..."
I'll simply assume that your zeal and concern for the Japanese people are what cause to make statements that one might otherwise interpret as deliberate lies or misinterpretations intended to be provocative. IOW, I'll assume you actually believe that I said that (and yes, I know the post that you are referring to).

You argue convincingly for humanity, and it's clear that you care about them. I do also. However, when it comes to stuff like this, I don't make my decisions based upon appeals to emotion, and hysteria generating comments about what's going to happen next. I rely upon data. In the absence of data, I will happily take an abundance of precaution.. but we are not operating with a paucity of hard data.

Quote:
People (especially acting in the nterests of corporations and salesmen) are not smart enough to operate nuclear power plants. Whatever safeguard you think exists, nature and human folly will eventually combine to destroy them.
Quote:
Now you tell me there were "no deaths" in the Fukishima incident, making the tsunami and earthquake far worse in effect.
And yet, you do not deny it.

Quote:
But radiation kills over time and you won't go wrong by betting that we'll see scores of deaths from this incident over the next couple of years.
Scores. This is the most accurate thing that you have said.

Quote:
I'll grant you know a lot about the subject, but, unfortunately, nature has shown the most important parts of what you've said here to be wrong.
Let me make this really simple for you (since you obviously refuse to read even the academic research I offered). Electricity and industrialization are one of the strongest reasons for our extended lifespans in the developed countries of the world. Everywhere they are prevalent, humanity, on average, has increased, if not their maximum lifespan, their average lifespan by more than 30 years.

So even based upon historical data, the deadliness of coal is worth the price humanity pays for it. How much does it pay?

For every single death that occurs due to our dabbling with nuclear power generation, coal cause 4025 deaths. Oil, 900 deaths. Even hydroelectric has a higher number (35). Even if a million people die due to the meltdowns at Fukushima, the ratio doesn't change very much at all. As I mentioned before, to catch up, we would have to have a meltdown every five days. The calculations and how they were made are present in the links I already offered for you to criticize or demonstrate wrong. Feel free because real science always welcomes such analysis.

Every incident that occurs validates your opinion, but it also validates mine, because I never asserted that incidents will not happen, or that companies are not corrupt, or that cheating does not happen. It's simple.. in terms of human life, I assert that the price is worth paying, because there is no alternative that costs less in terms of human lives.

Enjoy your life, David. No one else can.

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 03:41 PM   #106
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Tenyu. Radiation is radiation. The difference between ingesting in and external exposure as a problem is entirely due to the ongoing dangerous exposure. There is nothing in the data I shared that ignores that. All radiation exposure is considered by duration, and the risk calculations, had you actually read them, discuss that.

All the current reports of dead workers are due to non-radioactive causes.

We KNOW this? (workers' official exposure lower than actual exposure)

We don't know how many people will die of cancers from the accident. One million is certainly possible, but only epidemiological studies will validate that. Only time will really reveal that. I personally don't think it will happen, but I don't know.
I don't dispute any of your figures but I do dismiss the context they are considered in and the results of such consideration.

It's just haggling over the price of sold-out virtue.

Will it be a million deaths or only 750,000? I've read that a million deaths or more have resulted from Chernobyl.

The point is, these four fractured nuclear reactors continue to spew nuclear core material into the environment. There is nothing good about this in any way. The best estimates are that this condition will continue for decades. Unless it gets worse. And the black mark made by the point is that it is already worse and it's getting worser.

Still, it won't be the end of the world, will it? Isn't that your point? The scattered material isn't that dangerous. It won't cause that much harm. But you and Katherine seem to have taken a "snapshot" evaluation of the problem and used the earliest corporate accounts of the matter as actual truth.

But given the current situation, rational people have to ask, regardless of what the corporations and governments claim, how many such places as Chernobyl and Fukushima can we take? How many more should we accept?

Have you read about the New Madrid fault and what has happened in previous quakes there? Have you heard what's been reported about the North Anna plant, in Virginia?

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...spection-67151

And they've had problems already with tritium leaking into the groundwater.

I think we can expect five more blow-ups like Fukushima within the decade. What if New Madrid blows two or three different plants at the same time?

Nuclear power is inherently unsafe and it cannot be controlled by human beings against the ravages of nature.

That's the true truth.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 04:26 PM   #107
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
You threw a volley of accusatory comments and questions at me in half a dozen posts and I am willing to answer a few of those questions, but frankly, you clearly lack the desire to process the scientific data I (and others in other threads) have already offered, or even in disagreeing with me, you would not have made many of the statements you have made. Some of the data I offered even comes from the UCS, a nuclear opposition group of academic scientists.
As I just posted, it's not your data. It's the context within which you consider those data and analyze them--the profit paradigm. Nuclear plants cannot even be fully safe if designed and built by scientists for scientific purposes, designed to withstand every contingency. But for-profit companies can place reactors in clusters on fault lines, within reach of tsunamis, and store the used fuel rods in tanks on the roof! They can and have allowed underground pipes to leak nuclear material into the ground. They can and have had leaks and spills.

Chernobyl highlighted human error in operation of the plant and there are claims that over a million people have died because of it.

Fukushima highlighted human error in design and location of the plant. It proved that nuclear plants can and indeed do "explode".

North Anna shows that there is serious potential for multiple similar incidents here in the United States, specifically the clusters of plants in the New Madrid region.

You are giving me streams of numbers relating to theoretical operation of plants within limited parameters. I'm telling you that those parameters do not relate to the real world over time. The risks rise exponentially with the dimension of time. So that is why I say your statements are "sort of" accurate, like "a nuclear power plant cannot explode..."

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I'll simply assume that your zeal and concern for the Japanese people are what cause to make statements that one might otherwise interpret as deliberate lies or misinterpretations intended to be provocative.
It's not just the Japanese people. It's the human race, as well as the animal kingdom and the natural dignity of the earth. I hope my explanation above shows why what appears to be distortion is actually truth. Time distorts every original item. I'm simply applying physical time to every theoretical premise you present. The deliberate lies on this subject come from the corporate profit interests and their vested supporters, including the governments of the world. Fukushima is much worse than they have presented. And the best they know is that the actual radiation is off the scale of their instruments. They refuse to apply better instruments, for some reason--or at least to report the more accurate readings. You know that's going on, don't you?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
IOW, I'll assume you actually believe that I said that (and yes, I know the post that you are referring to).
Oh. You mean the one where you said something like, "The fact that you believe that a nuclear power plant can explode shows just how little you understand?"

That post?

You didn't say that?

Anyway, I think we can see whether I have any comprehension of this subject. So I take the leisure of tweaking your nose with it.

A surfeit of data does not equal understanding if analyzed under unreal suppositions. The fact is, nuclear power plants are not and cannot be made safe for human surroundings.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
You argue convincingly for humanity, and it's clear that you care about them. I do also. However, when it comes to stuff like this, I don't make my decisions based upon appeals to emotion, and hysteria generating comments about what's going to happen next. I rely upon data. In the absence of data, I will happily take an abundance of precaution.. but we are not operating with a paucity of hard data.
No, we're just operating with voluminous data framed within false parameters and limited to what the corporate and government interests will admit.

But leaving emotion out of it, to quantify things, how many domestic nuclear accidents of the level of Fukushima do you think Japan can experience and remain a country? Four more? Ten more?

And how many such accidents (of Fukushima severity) can we contain in the US and still consider ourselves to be benefitting from nuclear power?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
And yet, you do not deny it. (that there were no deaths in the Fukushima incident).
No, the explosion may have killed some. The tsunami killed some. But the type of release we see at Fukushima will kill people gradually and over a long time. How long? Any guesses?

Now, that's the current condition. There may yet be some event from this multiple meltdown that could release much more concentrated bursts of radiation that will kill people in bunches or expulsions of radioactive materials that will kill more quickly over a very long period of time. The fact that several people have not died quickly does not mean much. We can look five to ten years down for the early long-term effects. And I'll bet we'll see sobering numbers by the one-year mark.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Scores. This is the most accurate thing that you have said.
Scores over the next two years? I'd say 200 to 400 directly linked to this, just wildly guessing.

But what about beyond that, Tarik? It's going to multiply after that, year after year, even as the plant continues to leak material into the environment. So more material will be affecting people and the number will multiply exponentially.

How many such things can Japan survive?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Let me make this really simple for you (since you obviously refuse to read even the academic research I offered). Electricity and industrialization are one of the strongest reasons for our extended lifespans in the developed countries of the world. Everywhere they are prevalent, humanity, on average, has increased, if not their maximum lifespan, their average lifespan by more than 30 years.
I'm sure we'll appreciate those extra thirty years as we thread our way among the exclusion zones.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
For every single death that occurs due to our dabbling with nuclear power generation, coal cause 4025 deaths. Oil, 900 deaths. Even hydroelectric has a higher number (35).
You're comparing technologies thousands of years old with something that's only been going a few decades. Nuclear power plants have only begun to explode. I predict five more (at least) in the coming decade.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Even if a million people die due to the meltdowns at Fukushima, the ratio doesn't change very much at all. As I mentioned before, to catch up, we would have to have a meltdown every five days.
To catch up fast, we would. But the deaths generate slowly from nuclear, so their impact is far greater in later years. We only need a few more for the global environmental impact to become intolerable for intelligent people. And we could get five in one day (or many more than that) if (when) the New Madrid fault move again.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Every incident that occurs validates your opinion, but it also validates mine, because I never asserted that incidents will not happen, or that companies are not corrupt, or that cheating does not happen. It's simple.. in terms of human life, I assert that the price is worth paying, because there is no alternative that costs less in terms of human lives.
And I simply point out that you're using very short-term data and that the numbers are about to go off your scale.

David

Enjoy your life, David. No one else can.[/quote]

Last edited by David Orange : 09-07-2011 at 04:33 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2011, 10:34 AM   #108
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Introducing <<<Pluto-san!>>>

Sounds like Tarik.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 01:23 PM   #109
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 563
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

I haven't responded earlier because I have vastly more important things going on in my life and it's pretty clear that there isn't much of anything to discuss. This is likely my last post on this matter.

The thing about true believers is that they only accept data that matches their belief system and instead of attacking the data itself, they primarily attack those who convey it. A true believer doesn't need proof, they just need to offer meta-arguments (the profit motive and the obvious fact that one can and will always find people who cheat, even in a regulated environment like the nuclear industry) as their proof. They find individual incidents and extrapolate those in an unscientific attempt to use anecdotal evidence as if it were as valid as statistical analysis.

A true believers "proof" is invariably supported by people who are seldom credible scientists who have published papers that manage to create debate in the scientific community. Instead, the "scientist" is invariably someone who is "blacklisted" for their point of view and has to resort to "alternative" sources to get the word out. Makes for a great movie making material, and I'm sure that there might even be a few anecdotes to demonstrate that this is always true and should not be questioned the way a true believer questions the credibility of accepted science. A true believer relies upon sources that sounds logical and agrees with their point of view.

A true believer often resorts to mocking, teasing, insulting, appeals to emotion (usually fear) and attacking the credibility of anyone who speaks up and disagrees with them, sometimes in a very charming manner. There is little point in arguing with a true believer, because facts cannot change their mind.

My conclusion, David is that you are likely a true believer. The alternative is that you have a deliberate agenda and are resorting to deliberate lies in order to attack me or otherwise discredit me, but really, I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs and simply unable to accept any data that might call them into question.

The data I put forth is not mine, so discrediting or mocking me cannot change it. I can only offer my own conclusions for other readers who have not yet made up their own minds, so that they can read through the material (and please read both sides) and decide for themselves.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
As I just posted, it's not your data. It's the context within which you consider those data and analyze them--the profit paradigm.
Great example. You don't question the data, but you question it's context which is simply double speak for questioning the data. If you weren't a true believer and you really wanted to get to the bottom of this, you'd read the science and apply your doubts to it and see if those doubts were considered or not. Then you could attack the science, but that's hard work for the true believer. Clearly you didn't read my sources as I provided sources that include PURELY academic research (without a for-profit motive) and and also analyzed data collected by actual scientists who are against nuclear power.

So this merely demonstrates that you don't need to read the science to dismiss it, because it couldn't possibly have analyzed it in the context of which you speak. Clearly false to anyone who read the references. This is an example of true believer type behavior.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Nuclear plants cannot even be fully safe if designed and built by scientists for scientific purposes, designed to withstand every contingency.
...
You are giving me streams of numbers relating to theoretical operation of plants within limited parameters. I'm telling you that those parameters do not relate to the real world over time. The risks rise exponentially with the dimension of time. So that is why I say your statements are "sort of" accurate, like "a nuclear power plant cannot explode..."
Again, obviously you didn't read the link on risk assessment. You'd get a failing grade in school, but at least your rhetorical skills are strong. Your assertion that everyone in favor of nuclear power asserts that nuclear power plants are "fully safe" is a straw man you create because it is easy for you to attack it. Until you read the science. Again, if you read the sources, that is not the claim; the claim is that it is safer than other sources of energy, and that claim is backed up by actual data, which includes considerations that you again assert were not made. Again, attacking the profit motive is not a sufficient argument, particularly since I provided sources that are not solely created by the for-profit industry. In fact, I included a source that also analyzes real data estimates provided by anti-nuclear energy scientists, who have a strong motive to offer data that might make predictions that would validate your point of view (and yet still doesn't as their predictions OVER TIME have been demonstrated as incorrect). Attack the data, if you wish.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Chernobyl highlighted human error in operation of the plant and there are claims that over a million people have died because of it.
Claims, yes, but claims that are currently not accepted as likely correct results in peer reviewed scientific journals.

I'll just chalk up your misquote of what I said here as a true believers re-interpretation instead of a deliberate lie and refer anyone reading to go look at the top of this thread at the real quote in context. I assume that your own laziness is what led you to make such a quote without verifying it.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
It's not just the Japanese people. It's the human race, as well as the animal kingdom and the natural dignity of the earth.
The natural dignity of the earth? The earth which has had meltdowns in it's natural history before humans every got involved? The earth that has driven 99% of KNOWN species to extinction, vastly more than humankind has directly impacted?

Well, I grant that the earth has that human quality of dignity, perhaps, but playing this up as if humans were somehow special in our destruction (and/or protection) of the planet is overblown. We have a responsibility to protect the planet is we wish to have a chance to not join that 99%, but the odds are not in our favor, regardless of anything we choose to do or not do.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I hope my explanation above shows why what appears to be distortion is actually truth. Time distorts every original item. I'm simply applying physical time to every theoretical premise you present. The deliberate lies on this subject come from the corporate profit interests and their vested supporters, including the governments of the world.
Your assertion is that the data do not consider applying the obvious dimension of time to it's considerations. Again a demonstration that you didn't read the sources provided and you just made another assumption. And you won't read it, because that would require you to understand and analyze data that you already don't agree with, and instead of taking it in and analyzing or refuting the data on it's merits, you must keep this discussion as a meta-argument. You cannot cite reliable sources, and the meta-argument is that there is a world-wide conspiracy. Very convincing.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Oh. You mean the one where you said something like, "The fact that you believe that a nuclear power plant can explode shows just how little you understand?"

That post?

You didn't say that?
No, I didn't. Great example of a true believer twisting fact to their own ends. Very passive aggressive. Just change a few words makes it clear what you thought I wrote, instead of what I actually wrote. Or else you're deliberately lying. In fact, the very fact that a month ago you did accurately quote me and now you're changing the quote makes me wonder. Is this really how you interpreted what I wrote? Or is this a deliberate lie to discredit me and show how I was wrong about something, so therefore I must be wrong about the rest of what I have presented? It's passive aggressive either way. I do hope it isn't how you train. I would readily admit that I'm wrong, if it were so. I've publicly done so before. In this case, if you go back and read the actual quote and what I was actually discussing, one can see that what I said has been interpreted in a new manner. I leave motive to the observer.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
A surfeit of data does not equal understanding if analyzed under unreal suppositions. The fact is, nuclear power plants are not and cannot be made safe for human surroundings.
Q.E.D. You obviously didn't read a any of my sources or your attack of the data would be different.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And how many such accidents (of Fukushima severity) can we contain in the US and still consider ourselves to be benefitting from nuclear power
I already gave out those numbers and a source to go study if they were arrived at in a reasonable manner. We already know you won't read it, so here we go again. To have the same statistical impact on human loss of lifespan as energy derived from coal, we would have to have a meltdown every 5 days or so.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Nuclear power plants have only begun to explode. I predict five more (at least) in the coming decade.
That's a fascinating prediction. According to my previous post, scientists from the UCS offered up their own oppositional data that makes estimates that assert we should have had 5-6 full meltdown level incidents in the US [b]alone[b] by now (after 70+ years of nuclear energy usage). We haven't had even one. How is it that your predictions are so much more accurate than the predictions of scientists who are against the use of nuclear power, yet who's predictive data is also demonstrably incorrect?

True believers at best rely upon pseudo-science to reinforce their belief system and they easily allow every factual point upon which they have been demonstrated incorrect fall aside and be ignored because it's irrelevant to their fundamental truth.. or else they deny whole heartedly being wrong.

Tenyu's sources are interesting and worth reading and watching, however, they make all the same kinds of true believer mistakes in their attempts to analyze and critique the data. They are highly critical of data that does not agree with their beliefs, but accept without critique or analysis, the data that agrees with them. Also, some of the sources have credentials from educational institutions that have been demonstrated as fraudulent (and closed down) or themselves have their own "profit" motive. These things should not alone invalidate the proffered data, although it does raise the question of why this is ok for people on one side of an argument to suggest conflicts of interest and not on the other?

Of course, genuinely fraudulent credentials and conflicts of interest should be raised, but the best thing to do is to step aside from attacking the sources and study the actual data, looking for incorrect assumptions and the kinds of predictions that accurate data should be able to make. Observe the predictions. Then make your own decisions.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 02:53 PM   #110
genin
Location: southwest
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 103
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Any argument where one abuses logic and resorts to things like strawmans or attacking the source, is a losing one. However, there still may be an underlying truth with hasn't been properly examined.

The two major nuclear disasters (in Chernobyl and Japan) were both caused by human stupidity. Chernobyl caused by a safety test that didn't need to be run in the first place, then being done incorrectly. And in Japan...well...building a nuclear plant where tsunami's strike---which is equally as idiotic. Ever wonder why Homer Simpson's job was as a hapless nuclear safety engineer? There's truth even in satire!

My problem with nuclear energy is the same that I have with the space program. It's really expensive, and it has been demonstrated that humans do not possess the aptitude to prevent catastrophic disasters from occurring (and I'm talking things that should be preventable with basic common sense).

You're telling me the NASA rocket scientists didn't think objects traveling at 5,000 mph might damage their shuttle's skin???? And nuclear scientists didn't think building a powerplant in an earthquake AND tsunami zone was a bad idea??? I don't need to resort to strawman's in order to point out the significant flaws in that line of thinking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 03:35 PM   #111
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 563
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Roger Flatley wrote: View Post
Any argument where one abuses logic and resorts to things like strawmans or attacking the source, is a losing one. However, there still may be an underlying truth with hasn't been properly examined.
I disagree that the underlying issues haven't been or won't be properly examined, but I agree that it's important that they be addressed. Have you ever tried to slog through the post-mortem analysis of a major disaster? It's tedious, but necessary if we want to learn.

Quote:
Roger Flatley wrote: View Post
The two major nuclear disasters (in Chernobyl and Japan) were both caused by human stupidity. Chernobyl caused by a safety test that didn't need to be run in the first place, then being done incorrectly. And in Japan...well...building a nuclear plant where tsunami's strike---which is equally as idiotic. Ever wonder why Homer Simpson's job was as a hapless nuclear safety engineer? There's truth even in satire!

My problem with nuclear energy is the same that I have with the space program. It's really expensive, and it has been demonstrated that humans do not possess the aptitude to prevent catastrophic disasters from occurring (and I'm talking things that should be preventable with basic common sense).
I agree that these two incidents could have been prevented or else the impact reduced had a very few different decisions been made. On the other hand, even with the terrible results that have resulted, less damage has been done to humanity and the environment than has been caused by our other primary sources of energy by every measurable datum.

Quote:
Roger Flatley wrote: View Post
You're telling me the NASA rocket scientists didn't think objects traveling at 5,000 mph might damage their shuttle's skin???? And nuclear scientists didn't think building a powerplant in an earthquake AND tsunami zone was a bad idea??? I don't need to resort to strawman's in order to point out the significant flaws in that line of thinking.
That kind of critique is important. Pointing out flaws is quite different (and quite helpful) than asserting without compromise that humans cannot safely operate nuclear power plants or a space program. I would ask safe compared to what?

I think you'll find that both programs, largely because of cautious oversight, despite stupid mistakes (which are always easier to see in hindsight) have still resulted in a safer track record than coal or oil (or Russia's early space program which had a shocking cost to life), and if you look at the analysis, it's safer by ORDERS of magnitude.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 04:16 PM   #112
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Roger Flatley wrote: View Post
Any argument where one abuses logic and resorts to things like strawmans or attacking the source, is a losing one. However, there still may be an underlying truth with hasn't been properly examined.

The two major nuclear disasters (in Chernobyl and Japan) were both caused by human stupidity. Chernobyl caused by a safety test that didn't need to be run in the first place, then being done incorrectly. And in Japan...well...building a nuclear plant where tsunami's strike---which is equally as idiotic. Ever wonder why Homer Simpson's job was as a hapless nuclear safety engineer? There's truth even in satire!

My problem with nuclear energy is the same that I have with the space program. It's really expensive, and it has been demonstrated that humans do not possess the aptitude to prevent catastrophic disasters from occurring (and I'm talking things that should be preventable with basic common sense).

You're telling me the NASA rocket scientists didn't think objects traveling at 5,000 mph might damage their shuttle's skin???? And nuclear scientists didn't think building a powerplant in an earthquake AND tsunami zone was a bad idea??? I don't need to resort to strawman's in order to point out the significant flaws in that line of thinking.
Excellent points, Roger, and the essence of my own position.

Tarik's "data" would be excellent if these plants were operating in purely theoretical realms, but they are not and as I stated earlier (many times) the reality of their construction flouts the reality of the environments in which they are built. It isn't that some people cheat or that some people are incompetent, but that entire governments kowtow to the nuclear industry and allow these plants to be built anywhere and everywhere, whistling past the graveyard with their "projections" of what nature is "likely" to throw at them.

Best.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 04:53 PM   #113
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
The thing about true believers is that they only accept data that matches their belief system and instead of attacking the data itself, they primarily attack those who convey it. A true believer doesn't need proof, they just need to offer meta-arguments (the profit motive and the obvious fact that one can and will always find people who cheat, even in a regulated environment like the nuclear industry) as their proof. They find individual incidents and extrapolate those in an unscientific attempt to use anecdotal evidence as if it were as valid as statistical analysis.
Who says "statistical analysis" is "valid" anyway, Tarik?

The three types of lies, after all, are 1) lies; 2) damned lies; and 3) statistics.

Really, you should re-read your analysis of the True Believer and see if it doesn't apply to yourself.

You assured me that not only can a nuclear plant NOT explode, but that my belief that it can shows how little I understand the subject. Yet when a plant indisputably explodes (three times), you dismiss it entirely and you and Katherine both attempt to explain it away because it doesn't fit in your True Believer's profile of the nature of nuclear power. Sorry, chap, but you are flat out mistaken and your efforts to evade that fact only make your position worse.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
A true believers "proof" is invariably supported by people who are seldom credible scientists who have published papers that manage to create debate in the scientific community.
an irrelevant comment. My proof is that both Chernobyl and Fukushima plants exploded. Your response is like the Black Knight from Monty Python, when King Arthur tells him, "I just cut your arm off!" He cries, "No, you didn't!" then tries to minimize it with "It's only a flesh wound!"

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
A true believer often resorts to mocking, teasing, insulting, appeals to emotion (usually fear) and attacking the credibility of anyone who speaks up and disagrees with them, sometimes in a very charming manner. There is little point in arguing with a true believer, because facts cannot change their mind.
Again, an excellent description of your own approach here, belittling me for saying that a nuclear plant could explode. And you and Katherine (and others) have subtly played the "fear" card yourselves by presenting the phantasm of "how would we meet our awesome energy demands without nuclear power?" That's nothing but a presentation of fear. And the facts clearly have done nothing to affect your perspective.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
My conclusion, David is that you are likely a true believer. The alternative is that you have a deliberate agenda and are resorting to deliberate lies in order to attack me or otherwise discredit me, but really, I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs and simply unable to accept any data that might call them into question.
Tarik, you can question all you want, but Fukushima continues to spew radiation and it continues to build up in the locations where it goes. Yet you continue to minimize it. It's not "only a flesh wound." It's far more serious than a dispute over data: your karma has officially run over your dogma.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
The data I put forth is not mine, so discrediting or mocking me cannot change it.
Yet you mocked me for saying a nuclear plant could explode and now you're in the unenviable position of having to explain away the three recent explosions. And you haven't even addressed the many plants where tritium is leaking from corroded underground piping. And you haven't addressed the very serious threat of all the nuclear plants existing in the area of the New Madrid fault system. But you also continue to mock and belittle with phrases like True Believer. Make no mistake, bud. I'm a True DISBELIEVER and no theoretical data is going to convince me that 1) Fukushima did not explode or 2) that the result of the explosions at Fukushima are not extremely serious, with dire long-term consequences to come.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I can only offer my own conclusions for other readers who have not yet made up their own minds, so that they can read through the material (and please read both sides) and decide for themselves.
And I can only encourage those same readers to take a good look at the ongoing crisis in Fukushima and consider the effects of the recent earthquakes in the US, producing shaking much stronger than the plants were designed for. So they didn't crack open this time? Why would anyone imagine that "this time" was either "the last" time or "the strongest" these plants will face? Budo thinking requires us to prepare for the WORST possible. Our nuclear industry (worldwide) has prepared us for a rather flimsy version of the most MEDIUM "likely" conditions. And that can only amount to stupidity considering the consequences when (not if) they are mistaken.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Great example. You don't question the data, but you question it's context which is simply double speak for questioning the data.
Which is double speak for in fact I did directly address the data. In epidemiology, scientists consider four possible causes of an apparent conclusion from data:
1) the conclusion can be the result of CHANCE
2) the conclusion can result from BIAS
3) the conclusion can result from CONFOUNDING
4) the conclusion is TRUE

Much of the data and conclusions from the nuclear industry are based on BIAS, selecting the conditions and outcomes from a narrow theoretical range which has been proven utterly unreliable in both Japan and in the US (with our recent earthquakes).

Much of the justification for the risks is based on CONFOUNDING the danger with the "need" or "demand" for more energy as if this were an absolute value that cannot be changed and which must be met either with nuclear or with coal (following extensive fudging of the economics of those sources against solar and other soft energies).

And the nuclear industry calls it CHANCE when nature serves up conditions that exceed the design limits of the plants they have built on earthquake fault lines.

So no plants blew in our recent US earthquake? It doesn't mean that no damage was incurred and that they plants can still endure an equal or greater force in the future.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
If you weren't a true believer and you really wanted to get to the bottom of this, you'd read the science and apply your doubts to it and see if those doubts were considered or not.
Tarik....WTF????

Fukushima BLEW UP. It is spewing radiation to this moment. What are your data supposed to tell me?

I'm saying that another plant WILL explode (several more, in fact) and you expect me to forget that because your theoretical data (already disproven in reality) say that "it can't happen here."

It can and it will.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Then you could attack the science, but that's hard work for the true believer.
Not when the "science" is attacking itself and melting down as we speak....

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Clearly you didn't read my sources as I provided sources that include PURELY academic research (without a for-profit motive) and and also analyzed data collected by actual scientists who are against nuclear power.
When the data contradict real, observed events....what are you talking about? It's simply bad science at that point.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
So this merely demonstrates that you don't need to read the science to dismiss it, because it couldn't possibly have analyzed it in the context of which you speak. Clearly false to anyone who read the references. This is an example of true believer type behavior.
Again with the belittling and mocking. But you're standing in front of an exploded nuclear plant and telling me 1) that it didn't explode; 2) that the radiation it's spewing is not dangerous (even as it continues to accumulate in the environment) and 3) that what "didn't happen" in this case also "won't happen again"!

I'm just pointing out that your data obviously does not relate in any real way to the facts that have been observed and that for that reason alone they can be considered false and irrelevant.

And the rest of what you say, I don't have time to read at the moment. But having glanced at it, I've seen nothing that explains away the dire facts of what continues to happen at this moment.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 05:00 PM   #114
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
...these two incidents could have been prevented or else the impact reduced had a very few different decisions been made. On the other hand, even with the terrible results that have resulted, less damage has been done to humanity and the environment than has been caused by our other primary sources of energy by every measurable datum.
So two (2) incidents within the very brief period in which nuclear power has existed have failed to equal the damage caused by other energy sources that have been used for thousands of years?

That's convenient if nuclear damage stops right now and we never have another nuclear plant melt down.

Does that sound likely?

Apparently, your data tells you that it is likely, but aren't those the same data that told you a nuclear plant "cannot explode"?

Fukushima is still spewing and we have not begun to see the results of that contamination.

And earthquakes are still coming.

Unfortunately, I don't see these facts as boding well for your arguments. And that's doubly sad because they bode very badly for the future of humanity on the contaminated earth.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 08:34 PM   #115
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
My Predictive Powers

Hmmm. As to my predictive powers....looking back for the exact wording of Tarik's statement about nuclear plants blowing up and just how well I understand the subject, I find that over four years ago, I said this:

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
... I point you to NASA, the most redundantly "safe" agency in the US, not operated for profit and with no reason to cut corners. Yet they have had two really major disasters. My theory is not that "it's possible" but that we are bound for some kind of major disaster involving an explosion at a plant, a release of radioactive material, an accident with waste or some other kind of deadly event that will happen because of financial greed and short-sightedness.
I think Fukushima well fits the bill on all these points, while Tarik, effectively, said that such a thing could not happen (not to mention his assessment of the earthquake-caused incident at another Japanese plant mentioned earlier in this thread).

Now I'm warning that US plants built on earthquake fault lines will begin failing within the next decade. It doesn't matter whether you listen to me or not, whether you believe me or not. It's coming.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 09:46 PM   #116
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 563
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
You assured me that not only can a nuclear plant NOT explode, but that my belief that it can shows how little I understand the subject. Yet when a plant indisputably explodes (three times), you dismiss it entirely and you and Katherine both attempt to explain it away because it doesn't fit in your True Believer's profile of the nature of nuclear power. Sorry, chap, but you are flat out mistaken and your efforts to evade that fact only make your position worse.
...
Yet you mocked me for saying a nuclear plant could explode and now you're in the unenviable position of having to explain away the three recent explosions.
Since you conveniently refuse to look up the exact wording and context of my original statement, I'll provide it here. It's from post 49 of this thread:

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote:
Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Why is that a problem? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with the two earliest nuclear weapons on earth. Look at a chart of sizes of blast yields today. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-sized blasts are little pinheads compared to the yields of bombs developed only twenty years later. If you managed to blow up a nuclear reactor??? I don't doubt that the toll would be thousands at the very least.

Melt down one nuke plant and you can get all of those.
David, now I know that you must be arguing from a position of ignorance about how a nuclear power plant functions.

Do you realize that a nuclear explosion cannot result from the materials used in a nuclear power plant?
My tone here is neither mocking nor belittling, it was a factual correction about your comparison of a meltdown with a nuclear explosion. If you find it belittling or mocking when someone points out ignorance of facts, it says more about you than me. If you wish to imply malicious intent on my part, you have a lot more work ahead of you.

I also never stated that no kind of explosion cannot occur. That would certainly be a ridiculous statement since we already had examples of explosions at Chernobyl and for anyone who understands anything about reactor design; the necessary pressurized containment is a recipe for potential explosions. Yet none of these are, will be, or were in the Fukushima incident, nuclear explosions, something you were clearly referring to and which I addressed.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And you and Katherine (and others) have subtly played the "fear" card yourselves by presenting the phantasm of "how would we meet our awesome energy demands without nuclear power?" That's nothing but a presentation of fear. And the facts clearly have done nothing to affect your perspective.
I don't believe that it's playing on fear to state the measurable, undisputed (even by the anti-nuclear energy lobby) data that clearly demonstrates that the human cost of nuclear energy is less than that of oil and coal, EVEN taking into account the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima. The science discusses this in detail, including how the calculations were derived. If you want to attack this convincingly, I'm a willing student, but if all you have to offer is condemning the science as "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, which actually fit comfortably within the predictions of that science, then you have offered nothing convincing.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
But you also continue to mock and belittle with phrases like True Believer.
I'll accept that. It was my intent to characterize your behavior, not mock you, but of course I should have seen how this would be used. I certainly don't retract it, because your response merely fits my characterization. You have good intent, but your method is faulty.

I'll point out that again, you have made multiple posts attacking me personally and talking dismissively about the science produced by the "nuclear" industry, ignoring the actual offered material and the fact that it includes data from anti-nuclear activists, and analysis by independent academics who are not involved or funded by industry.

Clearly there is nothing more here to discuss.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 07:01 PM   #117
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Since you conveniently refuse to look up the exact wording and context of my original statement, I'll provide it here. It's from post 49 of this thread:
I'm not sure really, who made the statement. And the one you quote is not the one I referenced. However, let's look at some of the points.

I said:
"If you managed to blow up a nuclear reactor??? I don't doubt that the toll would be thousands at the very least. Melt down one nuke plant and you can get all of those."

Note that I specified "If you managed," meaning by intentional effort to blow up a plant in nuclear fashion.

And you said:
"David, now I know that you must be arguing from a position of ignorance about how a nuclear power plant functions. Do you realize that a nuclear explosion cannot result from the materials used in a nuclear power plant?"

Hmmmmmmmm. Really? Isn't that what happened at Chernobyl, though? That was a nuclear explosion.

And at Fukushima, core material was found miles from the plant. I don't think you can say there definitely was no "nuclear explosion" there, either. More than one of those reactor containments was breached. And as the nuclear material burns down into the earth, I'm not sure you can say that an explosion of ground water into steam would not be a "nuclear" event. Certainly, the idea that the Fukushima incident was a "hydrogen combustion" is pretty lame at this point.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
My tone here is neither mocking nor belittling, it was a factual correction about your comparison of a meltdown with a nuclear explosion. If you find it belittling or mocking when someone points out ignorance of facts, it says more about you than me. If you wish to imply malicious intent on my part, you have a lot more work ahead of you.
I don't think your comments rise to the level of "malicious" any more than mine do, but you seem to take my comments far more personally than I take yours. I am far from happy that Fukushima has "vindicated" many of my statements on this thread. But I am amused at how wrong it has proven many of the pro-nuclear advocates who posted so certainly here. The only question is whether those people will now admit their error.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I also never stated that no kind of explosion cannot occur. That would certainly be a ridiculous statement since we already had examples of explosions at Chernobyl and for anyone who understands anything about reactor design; the necessary pressurized containment is a recipe for potential explosions. Yet none of these are, will be, or were in the Fukushima incident, nuclear explosions, something you were clearly referring to and which I addressed.
I think Chernobyl was definitely a nuclear explosion and I believe that Fukushima may well have been some kind of nuclear explosion. The reactors were breached and core material was blasted into the environment. Unfortunately, the corporate and governmental lies we have been given prevent much real knowledge of what happened.

In any case, I still believe that, were malicious people to gain control of a major nuclear reactor, they could produce a nuclear explosion that would leave no doubt. They could intentionally do what was done by stupidity at Chernobyl. And they could do it here in the US. But no matter where they did it, it would have dire effects the world over.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I don't believe that it's playing on fear to state the measurable, undisputed (even by the anti-nuclear energy lobby) data that clearly demonstrates that the human cost of nuclear energy is less than that of oil and coal, EVEN taking into account the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
No, you play the fear card by insisting that we have to have nuclear or we'll all be deprived of the energy we have to have. You present a spectre of lack if we don't put nuclear plants all over the world. But it's a lack of something we never had before, so why must we have it now? That's the fear you guys are pushing.

And as I've said, the two events at Chernobyl and Fukushima are only the beginning. You're comparing the first two major (publicly acknowledged) incidents in a still-young industry to a history of hundreds and thousands of years for other energy sources. Only a few more nuclear accidents will prove what a misguided comparison that is. Now we have aging plants all over the world, built on fault lines and in other vulnerable situations, in former Soviet territories, in nations with disintegrating economies, apart from operational stupidity (like putting spent fuel rods on top of the containment buildings, which seems to be a common practice). So we have only begun to see the folly of design, placement, construction and operation and the potential for major destruction (if only through contamination) that the nuclear industry promises.

It takes a True Believer to insist that this stuff even can be safe over a few hundred years.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
If you want to attack this convincingly, I'm a willing student, but if all you have to offer is condemning the science as "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, which actually fit comfortably within the predictions of that science, then you have offered nothing convincing.
Well, it's almost impossible to convince a True Believer that their cherished belief is flawed. And I did not condemn "the science" as "lies, damned lies and statistics." I just pointed out that "statistics" is one of the best ways to tell a lie. And, really, it's daft to try to even use statistics beyond a theoretical point in this question. Statistics, in this application, is good for discerning fairly subtle gradations of effects. With a major disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima, it's pointless. We're given "statistics" based on "data" of highly questionable validity. The radiation at Fukushima pegs out at the very top of the available meters' range and we're given that top number as the maximum level of radiation onsite. And you accept that and argue that the highest readings from those very low-range meters are the legitimate highest levels of radiation at the plant? You disregard statements that a million or more deaths resulted from Chernobyl, but how do you know? You've read something? Could you quote it? What is the real number you accept? And why do you imagine that those statistics are based on valid data? And further, how many more deaths can we expect from Chernobyl alone? There is still contamination in Germany and France from that incident. What about other parts of Russia? Why would you imagine that there won't be many, many more deaths from that incident over many decades to come? That incident is still not over. We don't even know how long the containment dome there will hold that material. And we actually know almost nothing of the truth from Fukushima. So how can you say that "Chernobyl and Fukushima...fit comfortably within the predictions of that science"?

Could it be True Belief speaking? Could it be that the true situation has been tailored to fit corporate predictions?

I'm afraid you are the one who has offered "nothing convincing".

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post

David Orange wrote:
"But you also continue to mock and belittle with phrases like True Believer."

I'll accept that. It was my intent to characterize your behavior, not mock you, but of course I should have seen how this would be used. I certainly don't retract it, because your response merely fits my characterization. You have good intent, but your method is faulty.
Tarik, I should not have to point out that the True Believer is one who wants to spread his belief in support of the new thing. Nature, the Earth, the Tao are from eternal sources. They have always worked, they have never stopped working and they need no supplement from such dangerous sources as you Truly Believe we must add. My belief requires no action at all. The True Believer is the one who supports a new action. So while you may have "good intent" or you may have some profit motive, by characterizing me as the True Believer, you show that your thinking is exactly reversed from reality. Of do you understand that and intentionally reverse the truth?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I'll point out that again, you have made multiple posts attacking me personally and talking dismissively about the science produced by the "nuclear" industry, ignoring the actual offered material and the fact that it includes data from anti-nuclear activists, and analysis by independent academics who are not involved or funded by industry.

Clearly there is nothing more here to discuss.
No, Tarik. I have not "attacked" you personally. I've tweaked you mostly in very good humor because reality has proven my predictions (and thus supports my further predictions) while it has shown your claims to be quite shaky. You shouldn't take that personally, but you also shouldn't cling so stubbornly to your shaky position. And you shouldn't resort to mocking and belittling by pointing a finger at me while your other three fingers point back at you.

And as I've said, I have no dispute with the theoretical science behind the nuclear industry. I've simply shown how that theory breaks down over time in the real physical environment of the earth and in the profit-motivated reality of human society. Time and physical reality will definitely destroy all the safeguards that theory approves as sufficient. The profit-motivated corporate application of that theory will only accelerate the rate at which it breaks down.

Therefore, I can accept "the science" as virtually perfect. But the fact is that, in actual application, it is bound to fail and the results of a failure of that type are too damnable to accept.

I'm afraid there is still much to discuss, but only, of course, if one has the courage to face it.

Cheers.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 10-01-2011 at 07:12 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 07:30 PM   #118
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

David,

Chernobyl and Fukushima were hydrogen explosions, they undergo a different reaction than a nuclear explosion of an atomic bomb. The local physical destruction of a 'traditional' atomic bomb is significantly greater than a hydrogen 'bomb'. But the visual aspect belies the true extent and damage of radioactive fallout as the Japanese government has already admitted Daiichi equivalent to 168 Hiroshimas. Considering official numbers have been as little as 10% of the real numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if Daiichi were actually 1680 Hiroshimas in terms of radionuclide contamination and deposition of land and sea.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 10:58 PM   #119
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
David,

Chernobyl and Fukushima were hydrogen explosions, they undergo a different reaction than a nuclear explosion of an atomic bomb. The local physical destruction of a 'traditional' atomic bomb is significantly greater than a hydrogen 'bomb'. But the visual aspect belies the true extent and damage of radioactive fallout as the Japanese government has already admitted Daiichi equivalent to 168 Hiroshimas. Considering official numbers have been as little as 10% of the real numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if Daiichi were actually 1680 Hiroshimas in terms of radionuclide contamination and deposition of land and sea.
So, at Chernobyl, what happened? A hydrogen blast opened the reactor (there being no containment vessel) and simply exposed the core to the air? I understand there was a vertical column of light shooting straight up from the plant.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 12:11 PM   #120
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Tenyu's sources are interesting and worth reading and watching, however, they make all the same kinds of true believer mistakes in their attempts to analyze and critique the data. They are highly critical of data that does not agree with their beliefs, but accept without critique or analysis, the data that agrees with them. Also, some of the sources have credentials from educational institutions that have been demonstrated as fraudulent (and closed down) or themselves have their own "profit" motive. These things should not alone invalidate the proffered data, although it does raise the question of why this is ok for people on one side of an argument to suggest conflicts of interest and not on the other?

Of course, genuinely fraudulent credentials and conflicts of interest should be raised, but the best thing to do is to step aside from attacking the sources and study the actual data, looking for incorrect assumptions and the kinds of predictions that accurate data should be able to make. Observe the predictions. Then make your own decisions.

Regards,
Tarik,

Here's a timely response to the irony of your post. Feel free to debunk any of Gundersen's statements on his website in the same manner provided in the Pluto-san link.

excerpts from latest update:

In the 1990′s [...] I brought some safety concerns forward to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and they were ignored. And in the process, discovered a very cozy relationship between the regulator and the people that they were attempting to regulate. It went to congressional hearings with John Glenn and in the congressional hearings the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said this: "It is true. Everything Mr. Gundersen said was absolutely right. He performed quite a service." Nothing changed after that hearing. What he said to Congress had no affect on the way the agency was behaving.

There is an excellent journalism piece out and it is in the Austin Chronicle. It is investigative journalism at its very best and it is called, "Will Shill For Nukes." The author of it discovered that an industry group, NEI, the industry trade organization, was writing opinion pieces and they were then giving those opinion pieces to professors around the country and asking those professors of nuclear engineering at universities around the country, they were asking those professors to put those in the local newspapers. Well, quite a few professors obliged.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 12:32 PM   #121
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
So, at Chernobyl, what happened? A hydrogen blast opened the reactor (there being no containment vessel) and simply exposed the core to the air? I understand there was a vertical column of light shooting straight up from the plant.

Thanks.

David
An atom bomb is filled with a small amount of weapons grade uranium, Little Boy was 80% U-235 content while reactors are filled with reactor grade, around 4% U-235. An atom bomb releases as much of its potential energy as quickly as possible, and a nuclear reactor is designed for controlled release over time. Little Boy contained just a little over 100 lbs of enriched fuel, Daiichi contains over 5,000,000 lbs of fuel on site. Fission's the mechanism in both obviously. You're right that flashes of light, result of fission, were observed at both Chernobyl and Fukushima.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 09:09 AM   #122
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

David,

I was wrong. Reactor 1 was a hydrogen explosion and Reactor 3 was indeed a nuclear explosion. Gundersen explains this in his latest update from Oct 19. As you can see he almost said "nuclear explosion" but opted for the politically correct term "prompt criticality".

It's difficult to keep up with all the news on fallout contamination. Japan Times recently reported the Okutama region in northwest Tokyo has accumulated up to 300,000 becquerels per square meter. Okutama reservoir is the largest lake in the world designated for city use and it provides Tokyo with all its tap water. Former advisor Matsumoto told ABC former prime minister Kan considered the evacuation of Tokyo. Resignation was his only option.

Tenyu
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dead Zone aikidoc General 7 02-23-2003 07:24 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate